2
2
0
is it constitutional?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Constitution
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
2
2
0
Though it may not be a straight-up Nazi-gestapo radical regime, the complex can easily be perceived as such. Thank God for having a 1st Amendment to allow us to speak-out against tyrannical tendencies as inadvertent as they may be. It's the military industrial system as a whole that becomes so massive, cumbersome, and out of control that makes it seem as a dominating force over American values.
And for once I applaud our current commander-in-chief for curbing down the complex, whether politically motivated or not.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-cracking-down-militarization-local-police-n360381
And for once I applaud our current commander-in-chief for curbing down the complex, whether politically motivated or not.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-cracking-down-militarization-local-police-n360381
Obama: U.S. Cracking Down on 'Militarization' of Local Police
The federal government will no longer provide heavy military equipment like tanks and grenade launchers to local cops, President Barack Obama will announce Monday.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
That is a difficult question. If you go by the basis of a limited government, then I think some could find an easier way to justify it as it is the private market influencing the military.
However, as we are seeing most days now, this private influence is pushing the military to consider things it does not necessarily need - a new tank that the Army does not want, a replacement for the A-10 that isn't even a CAS platform, etc.
Eisenhower warned of the MI Complex in his farewell speech. It has corrupted the thought of the Pentagon & pushes for its own favor, many times selling to both ends of the conflict.
Until it is found to be treasonous or otherwise detrimental to the country, I do not know that you could definitively prove it is unConsitutional.
However, as we are seeing most days now, this private influence is pushing the military to consider things it does not necessarily need - a new tank that the Army does not want, a replacement for the A-10 that isn't even a CAS platform, etc.
Eisenhower warned of the MI Complex in his farewell speech. It has corrupted the thought of the Pentagon & pushes for its own favor, many times selling to both ends of the conflict.
Until it is found to be treasonous or otherwise detrimental to the country, I do not know that you could definitively prove it is unConsitutional.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
The term "military industrial complex" refers to the category of businesses that make their money through dealing with the military. This can include providing services (security at bases, janitorial services, day-care for troops, etc.) or materiel (tanks, planes, ammo, etc.).
The constitutionality of its existence isn't really a question...it's just a category of business, similar to the financial sector (primarily represented by Wall Street) or the technology sector (often lumped together as Silicon Valley).
The problem comes not with the existence of any form of business, but rather when they get enough power to sway governmental policy in a way that favors their bottom line, but does not serve the interests of the American public. When the sector in question is the military-industrial complex, those policies tend to involve getting involved in unnecessary wars, development of new technology that does not fill an existing need, or the signing of new service contracts to perform unneeded work.
The constitutionality of its existence isn't really a question...it's just a category of business, similar to the financial sector (primarily represented by Wall Street) or the technology sector (often lumped together as Silicon Valley).
The problem comes not with the existence of any form of business, but rather when they get enough power to sway governmental policy in a way that favors their bottom line, but does not serve the interests of the American public. When the sector in question is the military-industrial complex, those policies tend to involve getting involved in unnecessary wars, development of new technology that does not fill an existing need, or the signing of new service contracts to perform unneeded work.
(1)
(0)
SPC Eddie Espejo
is that something the older generation has come to accept as " just the way it is"? or something that should be changed but who gonna stand up to the military so nothing gets done type of approach? it seems to me the president could change certain things about it but then none are crazy enough to stand up against the corporations whos got interests involved or else they seem to geftdealt with.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
The existence of the military-industrial complex is neither good nor evil. The power it wields these days, and the agenda it sets, is what causes the problem. And yes, that should be changed, but it is so set in bureaucracy that it's difficult to know what to do to enact that change. The current POTUS does seem to be limiting it somewhat, but true power to do so lies in Congress (setting the budget) and in the Pentagon (setting the priorities for how those funds are spent). In neither case is it really possible to point to one person as the problem, or even a small group.
Since you can't call out people for being the problem, what remains is to rally behind those who seem to be doing the right thing, and hope the rest will get the idea from the support the few gain.
Since you can't call out people for being the problem, what remains is to rally behind those who seem to be doing the right thing, and hope the rest will get the idea from the support the few gain.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google